Demir and Others v. Turkey

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.

September 1998

Demir and Others v. Turkey - 21380/93, 21381/93 and 21383/93

Judgment 23.9.1998

Article 5

Article 5-3

Length of pre-trial detention

Length of detention in police custody in a region subject to a state of emergency – Turkish derogation under Article 15 of the Convention: violation

[This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.]

I.ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION

A.Government’s preliminary objection (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies)

First limb (Article 19 § 8 of the Constitution): objection not raised before Commission – estoppel.

Second limb (compensation for deprivation of liberty): cases in which compensation was payable not relevant to present case – above all, applicants had complained of a breach of Article 5 § 3, whereas remedy referred to concerned Article 5 § 5 only – ill-founded.

Conclusion: objection dismissed (unanimously).

B.Merits of complaint

Reference to case-law concerning effects of Article 5 on investigation of terrorist offences – present case concerned periods of detention of at least sixteen and twenty-three days.

Turkey’s derogation from obligations under Article 5 – PKK’s terrorist activity in south-eastern Turkey had created a “public emergency threatening the life of the nation” there – exceptionally long periods of incommunicado detention, without any judicial intervention – mere fact that detention concerned was in accordance with domestic law or that an inquiry or investigation had not been completed could not justify under Article 15 measures derogating from Article 5 § 3 – suspect’s subsequent conviction: no bearing on question whether there was a situation necessitating his incommunicado detention – inadequacy of safeguards against arbitrary treatment – harshness of detention concerned not required by crisis relied on by Government.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

II.ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION

Non-pecuniary damage: compensation awarded on equitable basis.

Costs and expenses: claim dismissed for lack of documentary evidence.

Conclusion: respondent State to pay applicants specified sums (unanimously).

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy